Docket No. 3186-19 
Ref: Signature Date 

From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:  Secretary of the Navy 

Ref:(a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 
    (b) MCO P1900.16F (MARCORSEPMAN) 

Encl:(1) DD Form 149 w/enclosures 
     (2) Administrative Remarks (Page 11) 6105 counseling entry of 18 Nov 18 
     (3) Petitioner’s rebuttal of 26 Nov 18 


1.  Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his record be corrected by removing an Administrative Remarks (Page 11) counseling entry. 

2.  The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 24 March 2020 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

3.  The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, found as follows: 

a.  Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulation within the Department of the Navy. 

b.  On 18 November 2018, Petitioner was issued enclosure (2), a Page 11 6105 entry counseling him for exercising bad judgement by failing to coordinate with unit leadership before counseling two Marines who were dropped from Sniper Basic Course.  The two Marines, who were members of Petitioner’s Reserve unit were activated, and administratively assigned to the 7th Marine Regiment when Petitioner counseled them.  Petitioner was not activated, and was not in a drilling status.  The recommended corrective action was for Petitioner to comply with all military regulations, not to violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and follow institutional core values of honor, courage and commitment.  Petitioner was advised that failure to take corrective action . . .  may result in judicial or adverse administrative action, including but not limited to administrative separation.  Petitioner acknowledged (signed) the entry and chose to submit a rebuttal. 

c.  In Petitioner’s rebuttal, enclosure (3), he accepted responsibility for making an error, noting that, as a small unit leader, his initiative in mentoring and counseling the two Marines would have been appropriate, had they not been activated and assigned outside of the chain of command.  Petitioner also noted that, as a school-trained sniper, he had oftentimes been sought out to mentor and develop his platoon, and was influential in planning and executing the battalion’s sniper section and assessment screener.  Petitioner also noted that, when he counseled the two Marines, they were checking back into the unit after they were dropped from Sniper School.  The advice he gave was in support of the chain of command, and was thoroughly debriefed to the platoon sergeant and platoon commander, who expressed gratitude that he was able to guide the Marines. 

d.  Petitioner contends that the Page 11 counseling should not have been issued because the was not in a drilling status when he counseled the Marines and when he was issued the Page 11. 

e.  Per reference (b), paragraph 6105, Marine Corps policy is that reasonable efforts at rehabilitation should be made before initiation of separation proceedings.  Unless separation is mandatory, the potential for rehabilitation and further useful military service will be considered by the separation authority and, where applicable, the administrative board. In cases involving unsatisfactory performance, pattern of misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions, or other bases requiring counseling under paragraph 6105, separation processing may not be initiated until the Marine is counseled concerning deficiencies, and afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome those deficiencies as reflected in appropriate counseling and personnel records. 

CONCLUSION 

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and in light of the intent and purpose of a 6105 counseling, the Board determined that Petitioner’s request warrants relief.  In this regard, theBoard noted that Petitioner’s actions did not constitute unsatisfactory performance, a pattern of misconduct, or a minor disciplinary infraction requiring rehabilitation.  The Board noted that, at worst, Petitioner had good intentions, but potentially poor judgement, and that his actions were not worthy of a rehabilitation counseling. 

The Board also noted that the counseling process involves supporting and reinforcing good performance as well as correcting deficiencies.  It is a positive, forward-looking process that focuses on improving individual performance and, thus, toward increased unit readiness and effectiveness.  The Board determined that, according to Petitioner’s rebuttal, is exactlywhat he intended to accomplish by counseling the two Marines who were returning to the unit after they were dropped from Sniper School. 

The Board thus concluded that Petitioner’s 18 November 2018 Page 11, and 26 November 2018 rebuttal, shall be removed from his OMPF. 

RECOMMENDATION 
In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action: Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing enclosure (2), his 18 November 2018 Page 11 6105 counseling entry. 

Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing enclosure (3), his 26 November 2018 rebuttal. 

Any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to theBoard’s recommendation be corrected, removed, or completely expunged from Petitioner’s record, and no such entries or material be added to the record in the future.  This includes, but is not limited to, all information systems or database entries that reference or discuss the expunged material. 

4.  It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 

5.  Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(e)), and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy. 



2